Narayan Roy v. The State Of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NAVIN SINHA
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ application is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Executive Engineer Public Health Division, Katihar 9. Sub-Divisional -1 Officer, Public Health Sub-Division, Katihar 10. Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Health Sub-Division, Barsoi (Katihar) 11. Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Health Sub-Division, Kursela (Katihar) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Uday Bhanu…
Judgment
Patna High Court CWJC No.18739 of 2011 (3) dt.16-04-2012
Executive Engineer Public Health Division, Katihar 9. Sub-Divisional -1 Officer, Public Health Sub-Division, Katihar 10. Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Health Sub-Division, Barsoi (Katihar) 11. Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Health Sub-Division, Kursela (Katihar) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Uday Bhanu Roy, Advocte. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, A.C. to G.P-1. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 3 16-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The claim in the writ application is to be considered for regularization on the plea that they have continued on daily wages since 01.04.1982. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite such long years of service, denial to regularize was arbitrary. The respondents had framed a policy that those who have completed 240 days of work before 11.12.1990 were to be regularized.
The petitioners have represented to no avail. The counter affidavit states that a policy decision has been taken on 16.03.2006 regarding appointment of daily wage workers who had completed 240 days before 11.12.1990 against sanctioned and vacant posts. The names of the petitioners were considered for regularization. But regularization was not possible in absence of vacancies. Patna High Court CWJC No.18739 of 2011 (3) dt.16-04-2012 Paragraph-43 of the judgment in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi) holds that daily wagers do not hold any post in the Government and the question of their regularization does not arise. The observations in paragraph-53 of the judgment directing regularization as a one time measure of persons as discussed therein did not include daily wagers. Nonetheless directions were being given for their regularization leading to clarification by the Supreme Court in (2010) 3 SCC 115 (State of Karnataka v.
Ganpathi Chaya Nayak) and (2010) 4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar) that daily wagers do not come under the benefit of the observations made in paragraph-53 of the judgment. The observations made in (2010) 9 SCC 247 (State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari) with regard to such daily wagers who may have been appointed against vacant sanctioned post as eligible for consideration under paragraph 53 of the judgment in Umadevi (Supra) is not applicable to the petitioners as no such specific assertion of fact has been made on their behalf. In (2009) 5 SCC 193 (Pinaki Chatterjee v. Union of India) dealing with a 1973 circular of the Railways directing absorption of it held that after the judgment in Umadevi (Supra) such circulars which provide for a method of recruitment in Patna High Court CWJC No.18739 of 2011 (3) dt.16-04-2012 Government service apart from open competitive merit selection are unconstitutional violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Operative part
That completion of 240 days of service may be a ground for appropriate relief under the Industrial Dispute Act but does not vest any cause of action for regularization stand well explained in (2006) 2 SCC 702 (M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava). Regularisation is not a mode of appointment. The petitioners were inducted on daily wages obviously in the exigency of work. There is no pretence of an appointment/entry in service by the front door. The daily wage appointment was then continued for long years to put a camouflage over what was essentially an illegal continuance to create a foothold for entry into Government service by passing the general route for an advertisement and competitive merit selection. The writ application is dismissed. Md. Ibrarul/- (Navin Sinha, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 14; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.